Live data from Hacker News

Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

garyvoth.com

61–70 of 167 posts

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to be pretty common in ye olde dates for studio photographers to use 85 or even 105mm lenses to get flatter fields and a little distance from the subject.

We aren't talking about studio or generally professional photography are we... But yes, the longer the lens the more emotional distance. A wide lens puts the viewer right in the middle of the action.

I’ve never heard someone talk about “emotional distance” as being related to focal length and to be honest it doesn’t have the ring of truth.

Longer focal lengths don’t even create physical distance. What happens is that people sometimes choose to step farther away when using a longer focal length, but you don’t have to do that.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#62

This is good timing -- I am literally in the middle of researching lenses and film SLR cameras for a beginner -- I'm looking to get into film photography. Anyone here have recommendations? I am currently reading about the Olympus OM-1 and it all sounds great apart from the lack of exposure compensation (but that might just teach me the hard way).

Have a look at the Fujifilm X-S10 https://fujifilm-x.com/en-sg/products/cameras/x-s10/

I like it a lot.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#64
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever used a manual focus lens on a mirrorless camera with focus-peaking[1] on? It's so easy to focus, it feels like cheating. It makes a 50mm usable wide open. (This is assuming your subject is relatively static or at least cooperative. Small children and animals really benefit from autofocus or a smaller aperture.) 1. For those unfamiliar with the term, focus peaking is a feature of most mirrorless cameras…

Yes, I used many manual lenses on my Fuji XT-10 and XT-2 - 12mm f/2, 35mm f/1.2, 56mm f/1.4 (all crop of course) among others. The only one I would say was easy was the 12mm (for obvious reasons). > This is assuming your subject is relatively static or at least cooperative. Well, there you go, that's a pretty important caveat. It makes e.g. candid photography pretty challenging.

Agreed. From my perspective, someone who would benefit from my advice doesn't need the added challenge of dealing with manual focusing in addition to properly composing their frame.

I see it as being similar to an innovation token in software development. Choose to learn one new thing at a time, not two or three.

https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology

Once you're comfortable with a 50mm with autofocus, go nuts! Turn off AF on your lens or body. Practice with manual focusing.

Buy an old Canon FD lens and see how delightful these vintages lenses are on a modern body! Then, attach it to a Canon AE-1 and learn how to shoot black and white film!

Lots to learn; just don't bite off too much at one time.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to maintain your opinion, but I can't agree with it. > I cannot recommend a 35mm for close-up pictures of people. Also a little too long. Emotional distance, framing difficulty, yada yada. 28mm is probably the best bet for casual candids with relatives for the reasons I listed. > The perspective is too weird. Who cares. If you fail to capture a memorable moment because you were busy looking into the viewfin…

You're personally excited about wide-angle lenses and you seem to be convinced that everyone else will feel the same way about them, for candids of friends and family, and I just don't think that's true. You say that longer lenses create "emotional distance" but this is, to be honest, one of the most horeshit photography opinions I've heard. The lens doesn't create emotional anything, it just changes what you get in…

Well, more than anything I wanted to present an alternative viewpoint. The author presented his as if it's the only way.

I arrived at my understanding after years of learning about photography and experience of doing it not professionally, taking tends of thousands of photos of all sorts of subjects. I think the point about emotional distance is under-appreciated.

Of course, this author (and I don't know why) clearly wanted to create the distance--you can see it by frequent use of monochrome/sepia coloring that mimics the nostalgic look of old photos. However, this was left unsaid, and someone may miss this factor when choosing the lens based on this article.

> Framing is not a problem that goes away if you use wide-angle lens. ... It's easier to get something in-frame, but harder to keep something out.

The core task is different IMO. When you are enjoying family time, especially with children, it's more important to 1) get something in frame in any way possible fast while 2) still being in the moment yourself than with other types of photography. If you are shooting children as models that's different, sure.

> I'm also not sure why it would take me longer to frame or focus with a 50mm lens. For candids, I almost always use an autofocus camera these days. It focuses at the touch of a button.

If you haven't tried wide-all-the-time, try. I shot a lot wide (20-28mm), 40-50mm and 75mm. With wider lenses I often shot from the hip with subsecond time between the moment and the shot, and got interesting dynamic frames (and I rarely crop). It just doesn't happen already at ~40mm, even if I spam shoot, I need to see the frame.

As to focus, you don't even need to focus many ~25mm lenses if you shoot with moderately closed aperture (just leave it around 5m~infinity). A longer lens makes it much easier for subject to be off, I have to make sure focus is right and a compact camera's autofocus is rarely reliable enough in low light to capture action. Remember that this is candid family shots, there's no proper lighting.

And 75mm, while great for street portraits or casual fashion, is additionally unusable as a main driver for candid family shots since in a random room you often can't back far enough away to capture enough of the action. In the circumstances described it's easier to come closer rather than opposite.

I thought 40-50mm would be a nice middle ground, but it doesn't give the really pronounced separation, bokeh and aesthetics of longer lenses like 75mm yet it does make things more challenging in all regards for no good (to me) reason. I find it OK for street shots but now I am more informed about its limitations in other scenarios.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#66
post #4

These aren't dead! You can still find a variety of fast 50mm lenses, from a cheap f/1.8 for like $150 (which is still way better than most kit lenses) to a very nice f/1.4 upgrade at like $400 all the way to absurdly expensive ones. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/premium-50mm-le... Their primary advantages: * Amazing "bokeh" -- the quality and look of the background blur that modern phones mostly try to…

Absolutely agree, but have to add a small nitpick: 50mm primes used to be lightweight. The trend is towards Sigma Art / Zeiss Milvus/Otus dimensions, and that means much better edge sharpness but ~1kg in weight.

The Leica M 50/1.4 is still around 300g and a great lens.

But indeed, as the sensor resolution of 35mm cameras exceeds many classic medium format cameras, the best lenses have grown accordingly to serve that resolution. To me, the Leica M system stayed mostly true to the 35mm cameras of the film age. The other alternative in my eyes is mFT which offers great "digital" lenses in the size of small classic 35mm lenses.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#67

It's not the only take on the subject, and I actually think it's quite mistaken. 50mm is great for street portraits or fashion shots. This is where you 1) can't come too close to not spook the subject, 2) want tighter framing, 3) want to put your subject on a little bit of a pedestal so to speak, or 4) want to make a huge print out of your shot. However, for candid "photos of your own loved ones" as in the article, I…

I cannot recommend a 35mm for close-up pictures of people. The perspective is too weird. I have a 35mm lens, I used it a lot, and it has its uses--and the main way I use it is to capture more of the room or more people when I'm taking pictures indoors. Going too close with it results in distorted pictures which is fine as an artistic choice but it's not the choice most people want to make. The Ricoh GR III has a 28mm…

>Going too close with it results in distorted pictures which is fine as an artistic choice but it's not the choice most people want to make.

Most people are used to seeing smartphone photos now, which (until recently) only had a wider FOV. I think stylistically, candid/general portrait photography is changing, and I think environmental portraits are much more in vogue than tighter framing with longer focal lengths. 24/28/35mm portraits seem to be more popular than 85+mm.

Just my view, feel free to agree/disagree.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#68

I've outgrown it, personally. For that "natural" perspective, 35mm is still wide enough to shoot a scene "the way you see it", but it can still be surprisingly intimate. And for the "portrait" thing, anything 70-100mm is a sweet spot. 50mm is trying to split the difference between both scenarios but doesn't really achieve either. So personally, I'm more likely to carry a 35+85 duo. Or in fact, a 50mm f/1.8 on an APS-…

50mm is my least used lens. I don’t even bother carrying it on trips. Like you said portrait is 70mm or higher. Landscape I use 24mm.

24 to 70 2.8 is the best lens because it can do landscapes and portraits. I may carry a fast prime lens if I am shooting indoors.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#69
post #27

What's limiting new digital cameras from becoming faster? A decade ago a friend showed me his digital camera with an ISO setting in the thousands and I was amazed at how little noise there was. I've since been a little disappointed that I'm still balancing noise and aperture shooting indoors. Phones take on the problem with heavy image processing, but I'm interested in hardware solutions.

You need lower pixel counts on the sensor for better ISO performance. Larger the sensor pixels, more light they get. Sony A7S have low pixel sensors and have performance better than a human eye. Night time shots with a full moon look like it’s a day time shot.

Re: Classic 50mm “Normal” Lens

#70
post #13

These are still useful on a micro four-thirds body, just not in the way you might expect. With a speed booster, you reverse most of the magnification and throw a huge amount of light on those small sensors. A Nikon 50mm AF-D on a .71x speed booster and an m43 body is a disturbingly fast setup at ~70mm equivalent field of view. All that said, the state-of-the-art fast primes for the m43 systems have left the classic 5…

Modern lenses will always benefit from modern materials, design and manufacturing techniques. That said the benefits of M43 as a format are shrinking with the advent of small compact FF cameras. Your 25mm f/1.2 lens is equivalent (from a field-of-view and depth-of-field standpoint) to a full-frame 50mm f/2.4 lens or thereabouts.
Post reply on HN